resolve_question

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the process (thread generation, debate run, decision extraction), the return payload, and the possible RuntimeError/ValueError outcomes. This is transparent enough, though it could mention persistence/side-effect details such as thread creation more explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, numbered process, Args section, Returns section, and Raises section. It is detailed yet every sentence earns its place, with the primary purpose front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-step tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the full call flow: inputs, processing, return shape, and error conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or understand its result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: topic as the question, tier as a configuration name with a default, and thread_id as optional with auto-generation when None. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Resolve a question') and resource ('structured debate... decision record'), and explicitly frames itself as a Layer 3 combination of run_debate + extract_decision_record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says agents call this 'for quick, verified decisions' and explains that it wraps two lower-level tools into a single operation. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for raw debate access.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.